[oi-dev] OpenIndiana Code of Conduct
aurelien.larcher at gmail.com
Sun Jul 24 15:40:25 UTC 2016
À dim. juil. 24 17:10:32 2016 GMT+0200, Nikola M a écrit :
> On 07/24/16 04:34 PM, Aurélien Larcher wrote:
> > Bottom line is: you do not modify *existing* content without prior discussion.
> Neither adding NEW documents nor editing should go without discussion
> In this case new page was added out of blue and it denied changing it
> nad ther IS ongoin discussion on this list and that can held as that
> here IS discussion as it is.
> And people deserve to see changed document.
> > I reverted it to the state it should be.
> It surely is not in a state it should be..
> ..not your revering has a meaning, but contributing to it's contents has.
> But if that is how you define it as protecting of random changes, I
> won't change it no more as said.
> > Now discuss with people, agree on what should be on the Wiki and what should be on the Website, then we change the website page accordingly, does it not sound democratic ? ;)
> I exactly changed web page to the current state of the things on Wiki,
> calling on being on topic and talk about text itself, and that is
> actually working and people talk and contribute with questions, answers
> and ideas.
> It is only democratic to pull the plug out of that page, showing that
> unfunished undemocratic documents like that should not have democratic
> support at all, promoting autoritarian rula and forcing it.
> Other then that, democratic way could be having links on that page
> pointing to Wiki so people can contribute there, but I choosed to have
> both of them presented concurrently, old useless one and newer rewriting
> of it.
If work occurs on the Wiki then it is natural to point to it.
> Rules are broken by putting that document on site in the first place, so
> deal with it however you want i showed how I dealt with it.
> > Putting the draft on the website
> Drafts should absolutely not be on the official website!
> That is misuse of term draft and of the website. People expect finished
> agreed and supported things on the site.
> Maybe on sub-site where is expected to have various things in private
> spaces etc.
> > may not have been the best solution but this is just a draft (hence "Proposed")
> Putting one word before "mandated" and forced document, doesn't makes
> things any better, it is even obvious that it is mocking to viewers,
> where minimal effort is needed to _force_ it by removing it.
> It is again how dictatorships work, having always worst case scenario
> ready and presented.
> > and at least it is visible and easy to read.
> And is is grous misuse of community, let me not repeat myself..
> So it is visible, but updated one is not supposed to be visible..
> > In any case you have no right to decide to modify this document unilateraly, so:
> So xenol does not have right to PUT it on the site unilaterally.
> And I have ALL right to change and rephrase and contribute improved
> version as I did on wiki.
You have the right to setup a workspace but modifying website content is subject to review.
> Plus I have rights on site to change documents, so why not I use them to
Because the rule on the website is: do not modify existing content without acknowledgement and review.
> Xenol used it's right to change, by putting it, I don't see the
> difference here.
Adam created new content, you modified existing content.
> I just used my rights on site to change it , I already had and I also
> made an effort to show differences in plainsight and put links and
> I have all rights, I logged in I changed it I discussed fully before it,
> I haven't received any valid reasons not to, and it is still discussed upon.
> > - we work on the drafts on the wiki with original version and your changes presented on one page each.
> That is obviously in the work, only think missing is that that bad
> document of xenol is still on the site, frozen.
> > - Adam and Michael took your comment about the publication to the Wordpress into account into account, let them respond and we then modify the page accordingly.
> They are not elected in this community on any position,
> Adfam and Michael do not rule in this community and I have no need to
> wait for any of them for any decision, not only including this document.
> Document can't be mandated by them nor put in force without proper
> and any future web site changes xenol will try to pushg in (like "docs")
> site, putting out broken 'poll' "results woithout user registration etc.
> are void.
> At the top of that, no one can mandate and forbid to people to talk
> discuss and contribute how they see fit or to stop changes.
> This document precisely gags people form discussing and having basic
> human freedoms, therefore putting it back online without notice that
> hings ar emoving on forward put whole community in a wrong picture.
> > - the website stays off topic until we reach the final version of the document.
> > Is it OK ?
> No it is not, because freezing that fascist document on site, pushes
> people to believe that "power" over infrastructure is important here and
> that "powerfull" can stop anyone else doing the right thing.
> People tend to even say things without even looking,
> and it is obvious that pushing document on the site is avoiding any
> procedure and community effort and that is bad behaviour that tend to
> As long it is there site is under occupation from that troll document.
> You can of course do whatever you want, it's always your free choice.
Do you consider that the group of active developers steering the project misbehave by proposing a form of organisation to help OpenIndiana move forward?
The need of a Code of Conduct was discussed within the group, ideas emerged and are thus proposed to the community.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. :)
> oi-dev mailing list
> oi-dev at openindiana.org
Thanks for sailing Jolla :)
More information about the oi-dev